Search

A cross-sectional survey of 445 Village Animal Health Workers ( VAHWs) from 19 provinces in Cambodia was undertaken. The aim was to establish their levels of training, farm visit frequency, reasons for visits and disease reporting practices, enabling the strengths and weaknesses of the VAHW system in Cambodia to be determined, in providing both a fee-based smallholder livestock clinical service and a government partnership in transboundary animal disease ( TAD) surveillance and control. The study used 'guided group interviews' and identified that VAHWs had good contact with farmers with 61.5% making more than one farm visit daily. However, incomes from services remained low, with 45% VAHWs obtaining between 20 and 40% of their household income from VAHW activities. VAHWs recorded relatively high rates of disease reporting, with 72% claiming they report diseases immediately and 74% undertaking monthly reporting to veterinary authorities. Logistic regression analysis revealed VAHW contact frequency with district and/or provincial officers was associated with more VAHW farm visits, and frequency of VAHW visits to smallholder farms was positively associated with average monthly expenditure on animal medication and equipment. This suggests that increased veterinary extension to VAHWs and access to veterinary equipment, vaccines and drugs may further increase VAHW-farmer engagement. VAHWs provide an accessible, market-based, animal health 'treatment and reporting' service linked to livestock smallholders across Cambodia. However, for improved TAD prevention and more efficient control of outbreaks, research that assesses provision of an animal health 'preventive-based' business model is urgently needed to reduce both the costs to farmers and the risks to the economy due to foot-and-mouth disease and other TADs in Cambodia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal health and agricultural productivity in low- and middle-income countries have been the focus of research for development (R4D) projects for decades, with varying levels of success when considering the long-term sustainability of interventions. Many of these projects have been funded, designed and implemented by researchers from high income countries, and therefore risk neglecting the cultural nuances and complex country histories that can influence their success. This opinion piece suggests three broad recommendations: (1) implementing culturally congruent practices to improve disease control and prevention practices at the village level; (2) promoting public-private partnerships to improve control of transboundary animal diseases; and (3) improving national animal health and veterinary services and their governance to improve disease surveillance, control and prevention. Development researchers need to consider implementing these approaches in future projects to improve the suitability and sustainability of interventions and acknowledging the current technical capacity of host countries. Foreign donor organisations need to ensure their funding guidelines and reporting requirements allow for these recommendations to be adequately implemented., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Smallholder livestock producers are a diverse population with wide ranging motivations for keeping livestock. The biosecurity risk posed by smallholders has been the subject of much conjecture, with comparisons often made between the level of animal health and biosecurity knowledge of smallholders, versus that of commercial livestock producers. This research aimed to gain a better understanding of current knowledge of smallholder production in Australia, particularly in relation to biosecurity and emergency animal disease, and to investigate the relationships that exist between smallholders and the organisations and individuals from which they seek information, assistance and support. Engagement with stakeholders is an important component of an effective biosecurity communication strategy as the dissemination of biosecurity related information from a single source cannot be expected to satisfy the needs of such a broad ranging population. A qualitative study involving a review of literature, semi-structured interviews with government and non-government stakeholders and the development of smallholder and stakeholder influence and interest grids was undertaken. This paper forms part of a broader mixed methods research project among smallholders. Results from the stakeholder analysis showed variation in the parameters used to define smallholders and in the level of stakeholder involvement. Smallholders identified breeding consultants, other producers, private veterinarians and family, friends and colleagues as having a significant to high level of interest and potential to influence their practices. Government agencies were perceived to only have some level of interest but significant influence. Industry stakeholders and rural suppliers were positioned in the quadrant reflecting perceived low levels of interest and influence. The interest and influence grid developed from stakeholder's perspectives demonstrate a clustering around the mid points for both interest and influence, with the exception of those from industry who described low levels of interest and influence. Commonwealth and State government stakeholders reported a higher level of interest than influence. Veterinarians, both government and private, reported some to significant levels of interest and influence. In contrast to the results from the smallholder grid, rural suppliers reported relatively high levels of both interest and influence. The current study demonstrates that to maximise the effectiveness of biosecurity communication, there is a need for government and industry organisations to further engage with all stakeholders involved with smallholders., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Some practices undertaken by poultry exhibitors, such as allowing wild birds to contact domestic birds, the high frequency of bird movements and the lack of appropriate isolation for incoming birds, pose a risk for disease introduction and spread. The aim of the current study was to quantitatively assess the probability of introduction of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses from wild waterfowl into poultry exhibition flocks and the subsequent spread to other poultry flocks. Exposure and consequence assessments, using scenario trees and Monte Carlo stochastic simulation modelling, were conducted to identify potential pathways of introduction and spread and calculate the probabilities of these pathways occurring. Input parameters were estimated from two recently conducted cross-sectional studies among poultry exhibitors in Australia (Dusan et al., 2010; Hernández-Jover et al., 2013) and other scientific literature. According to reported practices of poultry exhibitors and the LPAI prevalence in wild birds in Australia, this assessment estimates a median (5-95%) probability of exposure of a bird kept by a poultry exhibitor of 0.004 (0.003-0.005). Due to the higher susceptibility of infection of turkeys and waterfowl, this probability is higher in flocks keeping these bird species than in those keeping chickens or pigeons only. Similarly, once exposure has occurred, establishment of infection and subsequent spread are more likely in those flocks keeping waterfowl and turkeys than in those keeping chicken and pigeons only. Spread through movement of birds is the most likely pathway of spread, followed by contaminated fomites, wild birds and airborne spread. The median probability of LPAI spread through movement of birds in flocks keeping waterfowl and turkeys was estimated to be 0.280 (0.123-0.541) and 0.230 (0.104-0.421), respectively. A lower probability was estimated for chicken (0.087; 0.027-0.202) and pigeon (0.0003; 3.0×10(-5)-0.0008) flocks. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the prevalence of LPAI in wild waterfowl and the probability of contact of domestic birds with wild waterfowl are the most influential parameters on the probability of exposure; while the probability of spread is mostly influenced by the probability of movement of birds and the probability of the exhibitor detecting and reporting LPAI. To minimize the potential risk of AI introduction and spread, poultry exhibitors should prevent contact of domestic birds with wild birds, and implement appropriate biosecurity practices. In addition, adequate extension services are required to improve exhibitors' abilities to recognize diseases and reporting behaviour., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Pigs are considered high risk for the introduction and spread of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in Australia. Facilities where animals from different origins are commingled, such as saleyards, pose a high risk for disease spread. Sound on-farm management practices and biosecurity protocols are the first line of defence against a potential on-farm disease outbreak. This study evaluated the practices of 104 producers (vendors who sold pigs and purchasers of live pigs for grow-out) who traded pigs at 6 peri-urban and rural saleyards in eastern Australia. Specifically, management and on-farm biosecurity practices were assessed using an in-depth questionnaire. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to investigate (1) producer associations: producer type, State, motivation to keep pigs, farm type, gender, years having owned pigs, and the acquisition of formal livestock qualifications; and (2) pig associations: herd size, housing, management (husbandry and feeding) practices and biosecurity (including pig movement) practices. Backyard operations (<20 sows) were undertaken by 60.6% of participants, followed by small-scale pig operations (28.8%; 21-100 sows). Few producers (16.3%) reported residing in close proximity (<5 km) to commercial operations; however, less rural producers had neighbouring hobby pig operations within 5 km of their property (P=0.033). Motivation for keeping pigs was significantly associated with a number of biosecurity practices. Producers who kept pigs for primary income were more likely to provide footwear precautions (P=0.007) and ask visitors about prior pig contacts (P=0.004). Approximately 40% of backyard and small-scale producers reported not having any quarantine practices in place for incoming pigs, compared to only 9.1% among larger producers. The main reasons cited for not adopting on-farm biosecurity practices in this study included having no need on their property (43.1%) and a lack of information and support (by the industry and/or authorities; 18.5%). Up to three-quarters of all producers maintained an open breeding herd, regularly introducing new pigs to the main herd. Saleyards are an important source of income for backyard and small-scale producers as well as an important risk factor for the introduction and dissemination of endemic and emerging animal diseases. Differing management and biosecurity practices as well as the motivations of these producers keeping pigs in small numbers and trading pigs at saleyards need to be taken into account in the development of successful biosecurity extension programmes for this sector of the Australian pork industry., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)